Telecom in NZ haven't enabled their transparent http/general web caching in NZ yet. I understand they have the hardware to do it but have been trialling it extensively first. It will make a big difference for all Telecom plans when/if it goes live.

Regarding AAPT's new plans lets wait and see what the users report peak time performance and congestion is like.

Are you saying that's what they will claim, or do you think that's a real reason?

both

Given that Telecom essentially owns SCC and has its own national network, it would actually probably be cheaper for Telecom to offer such a plan in NZ than AU.

maybe. maybe not. network is not the only cost remember. For example, wages are considerably higher in Oz than here, so cost to serve customers will also be higher.

Of course it could be that AAPT is actually a cheaper network than NZ anyway. One possibility: Telecom have to provide services to rural customers which is expensive and loss making. AAPT has no such restriction. They can concentrate their business on the profitable urban areas and so might achieve much better economies of scale than Telecom can.

cokemaster:Throttling is different to traffic shaping. Perhaps you should do some research on the topic before writing posts like this...

What are you talking about? You're arguing over a misused word. All you're doing is trying to divert from the real point. You compared this plan to Big Time and I showed that they are not the same, so in defence, you argue about my wrong terminology. Grow up.

Oops - I've just fed the troll.

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll - got it. (Again, grow up)

NonprayingMantis:maybe. maybe not. network is not the only cost remember. For example, wages are considerably higher in Oz than here, so cost to serve customers will also be higher.

What? You're saying it would cost LESS to offer this plan in NZ (due to lower employment costs)... So according to you, lower network costs + lower wages = higher cost to offer equivalent plan...? I'm really confused about what you're trying to say.

Of course it could be that AAPT is actually a cheaper network than NZ anyway. One possibility: Telecom have to provide services to rural customers which is expensive and loss making. AAPT has no such restriction. They can concentrate their business on the profitable urban areas and so might achieve much better economies of scale than Telecom can.

Like freitasm just said, no. The cost is covered by the TSO. Also, better economies of scale than Telecom? Yeah right.

I haven't looked up the numbers but given the population difference between AU and NZ it's likely AAPT's residential ADSL customer base is larger than the entire NZ customer base when you combine all NZ isp's numbers together.

I haven't looked up the numbers but given the population difference between AU and NZ it's likely AAPT's residential ADSL customer base is larger than the entire NZ customer base when you combine all NZ isp's numbers together.

NZ has grown to just over 1 million by now, Australia is growing much faster though and is forecasting 69% penetration by 2013.

Caching will help a lot, especially as you can now have Google/Akamai taking serious Gbps out of your bandwidth pool before you even deploy transparent HTTP caches (and if you are fealing brave, Peerapp caches).

NonprayingMantis:maybe. maybe not. network is not the only cost remember. For example, wages are considerably higher in Oz than here, so cost to serve customers will also be higher.

What? You're saying it would cost LESS to offer this plan in NZ (due to lower employment costs)... So according to you, lower network costs + lower wages = higher cost to offer equivalent plan...? I'm really confused about what you're trying to say.

yes, no idea what I was talking about there. Never post while slightly drun. It was a very poor example. However there are a lot of costs that an Ozzy ISP would face that are considerably cheaper than in NZ.

Of course it could be that AAPT is actually a cheaper network than NZ anyway. One possibility: Telecom have to provide services to rural customers which is expensive and loss making. AAPT has no such restriction. They can concentrate their business on the profitable urban areas and so might achieve much better economies of scale than Telecom can.

Like freitasm just said, no. The cost is covered by the TSO. Also, better economies of scale than Telecom? Yeah right.

True, but the TSO isn’t a simple subsidy of the excess cost by the government, it is a split of the cost by carrier. So because Telecom has more market share, they have to pay more of the cost in the first place (at least how I understand it).

For example – if the extra cost of servicing those customers is $100m, then Telecom get $100m. Seems like that means the cost is covered, but where does the $100m come from? ~$70m of it comes from Telecom in the first place (because of their market share).

IOW, Telecom only gets 40% of the cost of serving those customers, it's not a full subsidy.

Now I agree that is probably the fairest way of doing it in the NZ market (because other ISPs have to bear part of the costs too so it doesn’t discriminate against them) but when comparing to markets like Australia where most of the population is in urban areas and there are very few rural customers it gives Telecom (and all other NZ telcos) a much higher average cost per customer.

Ragnor: I haven't looked up the numbers but given the population difference between AU and NZ it's likely AAPT's residential ADSL customer base is larger than the entire NZ customer base when you combine all NZ isp's numbers together.

I would be surprised if that was the case. It is possible I suppose. However, keep in mind that international bandwidth bought by Telecom NZ and AAPT is probably pooled, meaning they both get it for the same price, so economies of scale probably doesn't factor in for international bandwidth. For national bandwidth, Telecom NZ owns the entire network, whereas I assume AAPT doesn't (eg I don't think it owns the lines). If that's the case, then Telecom NZ is probably better off regardless of whether or not AAPT has more customers.

NonprayingMantis:it gives Telecom (and all other NZ telcos) a much higher average cost per customer.

When you factor in everything else, I would say that's not the case. The TSO is the only example I've seen so far that puts Telecom NZ at a disadvantage to AAPT. All of the other factors (lower wages, own nationwide network) would surely negate it. To say that the TSO is such a burden that it prevents Telecom NZ from releasing a "true"* unlimited plan, especially in light of its other advantages, is a bit of a stretch.

Question: Do you believe ISP's in NZ would offer unlimited plans with less/no traffic management if it was economically viable to do so?

I believe at minimum some would if they could feasiably do it, but they can't currently.. so don't currently.

ISP's are businesses like any other they have responsibility to their shareholders and investors to not lose their money and make a reasonable return on investment.

If you really think it possible to offer such plans right now in NZ (and not lose money on every customer) I invite you to found Screeb Net you can run it as a not for profit ISP that provides unlimited adsl plans with no traffic management.

Ragnor: Question: Do you believe ISP's in NZ would offer unlimited plans with less/no traffic management if it was economically viable to do so?

Not necessarily - it might not make as much money as regular plans, so they go with them instead. That doesn't mean it's not viable. There are also other reasons they might not do it - eg the investment in caching might put them off. Not to mention that since it hasn't been done in NZ before, they don't want to take the risk - especially true of smaller ISPs.

The other thing is that it indeed might not be viable for most ISPs to do it - but I'm not arguing that - I'm talking about Telecom. I've already mentioned their advantages over AAPT - their advantages over other NZ ISPs are much the same (and then some).

Ragnor: If you really think it possible to offer such plans right now in NZ (and not lose money on every customer) I invite you to found Screeb Net you can run it as a not for profit ISP that provides unlimited adsl plans with no traffic management.

I wait with baited breath.

Ah, the old "why don't you start your own business then". A completely meaningless argument. I have better things to do than dedicate my life to running an ISP, so no, I'm not going to do that, regardless of whether or not I think it's viable. It's the same reason I don't currently own an ISP (or any other business for that matter).